Have You Not Read S4:E5 - Atonement

The Meaning of Atonement and Why Theories Differ

Welcome to Have You Not Read, a podcast seeking to answer questions from the text of Scripture, for the honor of Christ, and the edification of the Saints. Before we dig into our topic, we humbly ask you to rate, review, and share the.

Podcast. Thank you. I'm Chris Kiesler and joining me are Michael Deere and David Kassin. All right, and we've got a couple of questions today about atonement. What is the purpose of theories of the atonement?

Are there specific ones we should embrace or be aware of? And then also, how can we make a positive case for limited atonement and refute the use of verses like John 3 .16 that are used to argue against it?

There is a lot there to unpack. Yes. Maybe we should start by.

Defining atonement now. Yes. So, the word atonement is the creation of an English reformer, a translator of the Scriptures, Tyndale, who was trying to find an English word to describe what he saw in the original language about reconciliation and redemption.

So, he took three English terms and put them together. At-one-ment. To be at one, the condition of being at one with God, he called it at-one-ment. And we say atonement. So, we say atonement instead of at-one-ment, but that's the whole idea.

He was looking for that particular way of translating and getting it across to his readers. He created that word. Yes, he.

Coined it. And Tyndale is the classic English reformer who really helped to give the English Bible, he came after, I think, after Wycliffe, 150 years later, who really made an enormous impact on our English Bible.

I didn't know he coined that word. Yes, so he coined the term, that's how we have the word atonement. But what he was going after was the ideas that were there in the text to give expression to that. And so, when it comes to theories of the atonement, we're talking about how is it particularly, according to the Bible, that we are made one with God, that we were reconciled to God, at peace with God.

And so, we're gonna get into some of the background of that, but when the question comes, are there specific ones we should embrace or specific ones that we should beware of, I think you should embrace the right theory of the atonement and beware of all the wrong ones, is my personal opinion as a pastor.

Example, Governmental, and Christus Victor Theories

Now, why do we have different theories of the atonement? Not because the Bible is unclear, but that people have different starting points of trying to understand the distance between us and God. If we think that man is somewhat misguided, all we need is an example to show us the way.

Misguided but basically good? If we think that human life is disordered and that all the problems in human life come from this life being disordered, then we need someone to put it all into order. So, I've just mentioned two theories of the atonement.

One, Jesus Christ dies on the cross as an example to show all men how to live in sacrificial love, and this will save humanity once we follow his example. And the atonement is more about us coming together in unity, and Jesus shows us the way by sacrificial love.

And in this sense, God, however we understand God, will be pleased. And so that would be a very, very kind of ecumenical approach to the.

Atonement. Is there a proper term for that? Like the example approach? Yeah, it.

Would be probably a whole lot of different terms. Not very well established, but there's an idea there. We're like, well, Jesus was an example. He was a good man. What's the point of him dying on the cross?

It shows us.

The way. Albert Schweitzer... He's not paying for sin, necessarily, but he's.

Showing you a better way to live. Yeah, so Schweitzer would hold to this idea, you know, he thought that of Christ as a failed prophet crushed under the wheel of history, but that his example, his example shows us the way forward.

Therefore, Schweitzer goes and sacrifices himself for the good of people in Africa, because Jesus shows us the way. This is the way that we are going to be saved if we follow his example. And so Hugo Grotius would go a little bit further and say, here's the governmental theory of the atonement.

We need Christ to die upon the cross and be raised from the dead to set in order a new way of relating to each other and to God. Jesus does this for us, and this is how we are essentially saved by Jesus ordering everything properly through the governmental theory of the atonement.

This would be very compatible with all manner of Christian groups who would be more or less interested in talking about salvation, about just the free act of the human will, seeing Christ in his example, but more than that, more than that, recognizing him as the risen Lord and submitting to him and being saved because I choose to be saved.

And he's going to save us by all of us complying with Christ in very much an obedience-based salvation. And Christ will order us and bring us along just fine. So everybody from the Sassanians to various arms of Arminian ideas and Pelagian, very much Pelagian ideas, not just really Arminian, all the way to Pelagius, if you hold to those ideas, you would be very fond of the governmental theory of the atonement.

Beyond that, we're looking at another theory called Christus Victor. We're talking about Christ saves us by his victory on the cross. The cross is not a defeat, it's a victory. He proves this by his resurrection.

He's overcoming the forces of darkness in this, and we, in living in this victory, we too are victorious, and we overcome sin, we overcome evil, we are overcoming, eventually we're overcoming death, all because of our union with Christ through faith.

And there's not really any kind of exchange going on, no, you know, all this expression about blood and sacrifice is, you know, it's there, but that's not the main focus. Now, so far there's been some building up of some false dichotomies.

Jesus is our example, and him dying on the cross is shown to us as an example in the text, as Jesus has loved us and laid down his life for us, so we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren and love one another.

Hey, the example is there. Does he reorder and restructure and govern as King of Kings and Lord of Lords in his death and resurrection? You betcha. And was it a victory? Yes, it was. So these are not either-or, these are all part.

They're all part of the same thing. So if we stop, don't give a full account of all that occurs in the Atonement. More happens than just these things.

Penal Substitution, Propitiation, and Expiation

Are there ones there is an aversion to, say, in our culture, or ones that maybe the.

Bible talks about but our culture wants to downplay? Yeah, so the classic Christian expression of the Atonement is the penal substitutionary theory of the Atonement, where Christ dies vicariously in our place and for our sake on the cross so that the judgment, the wrath of God, the hell that we deserve for our transgressions, our sins, our stains, everything, Christ bears it in our place and for our sake, and all of his obedience and righteousness that he manifested in his life and with which he pleased the Father completely, that the merits of that is imputed to us, accounted to us, by faith.

So that by faith, by faith in Jesus Christ, we find that the entirety of our guilt is completely paid for, atoned for before God, and not only that, not only is there forgiveness, but there's also justification.

Not only is it that we're not guilty, but that we're actually righteous in the sight of God, because we have the very righteousness of Christ clothing us. And this is the point, and it would be very good to read Romans 3, Philippians 3, to get started, and to see these themes come out, and to follow that up with Romans 4, and so on.

So the penal substitutionary Atonement, so penal meaning the punishment, the legal punishment, the appropriate righteous punishment, substitutionary, like it was shown throughout the Old Testament, the shadows of Christ being the sacrificial system, the Lamb in the place of the sinner.

Well, Jesus is called the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, so he is the Lamb who is in our place, and for our sake, he dies, and so all at once he is both goats on the day of Atonement, Yom Kippur.

So the high priest lays his hand upon the one goat, all the sin is symbolically transferred to that goat, that goat's throat is slit, the blood pours out, the blood is collected, the goat is burned up on the altar, the blood is sprinkled upon the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies.

Once again, the high priest places his hands upon another goat, all the sins of the people is transferred to that goat, and that goat is sent out of the camp, out into the wilderness to wander and stagger and die and never be seen again.

So here we have two terms, propitiation, the satisfying payment of our sins to God, and expiation, in which our sins are removed far from us, as far away from God as east is from the west, so he no longer deals with us on account of those sins.

So these are the themes of the penal substitutionary theory of the Atonement. We learn these themes in shadow and type in the Old Testament, and then they are explained in detail and in encouragement in the New Testament.

Romans 3 and the Great Exchange

So you've listed out some theories of the Atonement. I don't think it's exhaustive, but the way you ordered it, they almost kind of built upon one another, and those are aspects of each of those into penal substitution.

You mentioned that there was a misguided, that we're misguided, so we needed a better example. Things are disordered. Christ has to come to put things in order, so we have a better government leadership to actually focus us and bring us along.

It's not just an example, but there's actually some control in there. Then Christ, as the victorious one, talked about the new life, you know, because of our union with him, actually live in the Christ's life.

And then the penal substitution, which, according to what you just said, is the theme of the Old Testament into the New. You mentioned Romans 3, and it says specifically, you know, because we all know Romans 3 .23, which is, "...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.".

But, you know, the verse continues, "...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.". Verse 24, "...and are justified by his grace as a gift through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forth as a propitiation by his blood to be received by faith.".

This was to show God's righteousness, because in divine forbearance, he had passed over former sins. And it was to show his righteousness at the present time, that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Christ Jesus.

So we have the great exchange there. We have the taken away sin, because sin had to be paid for. There was a propitiation. God's wrath had to be satisfied. And that is not something that's mentioned in these previous three versions, or the previous three theories of the atonement.

We're talking about the governmental and the victorious. We're not talking about being payment for sin, that God is righteously angry with sin. And to pour that out on Christ, and to have the exchange of Christ's righteousness for our sin, makes God both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Christ Jesus.

So built upon that, you're saying that that's not something new. That's something that is a theme that has been carried, really, from the earliest chapters in Genesis. And so I think we can say that the New Testament, in particular, supports penal substitution.

And then the question was, then, what was the purpose behind all these different theories? And I think you touched on it a little bit, that there were some presuppositions for each one of those. Yes. That there's a reason why they kind of expressed them.

That way. Yeah. So there is, depends on your starting point. So when we're thinking about the need for the Atonement, if there's an appreciation for the Atonement, that there's a sense that Jesus Christ is key.

He's central. His death upon the cross means so much. But what does that mean? The starting points are going to be different. If you, if your starting point with man is going to be something like, we need a better example, we need better governance, or we live in defeat but we need victory.

These things might be true, but they're not the total picture, or even at getting to the heart of the matter. And the heart of the matter, Jesus says, is that we are desperately wicked. And that all manner of evil things come out of us from the inside.

And that Paul talks about later in Romans 5, that we are sinners in Adam, condemned before God. And we need God's own righteousness to be right with God. The only way to be at one with God is to, by God's grace and faith, to be in union with the one who is God, Christ, our mediator.

Everything depends on us being made in the image of God, accountable to God. What was it that separated Adam and Eve from God? It wasn't that they followed a bad example, though you could kind of see that.

It's not that there was a bad governance. It wasn't that they had a defeat, particularly the problem was sin, which brought death, which necessitated death to bring about righteousness. From the first Adam to the last Adam, there needed to be an appropriate way in which the holiness of God, the glory of the offended glory of God in his wrath, would be fully satisfied.

The starting point has to be God. He's the standard. It's his glory that we have fallen short of. Very key, you go into Romans chapter 3, that very famous verse, Romans 3, all have sinned, verse before it, for there is no difference.

Between what? Between Jew and Gentile. A little bit further back in Romans 3 and into Romans 2, we learned that not everyone was born under the law. Well, the Jews were, Gentiles weren't. So how is it that everyone's accountable to God?

Because we are all made in the image of God, therefore we have fallen short of not the Ten Commandments. We've fallen short of the glory of God. Because we were made in God's image, we have fallen short of his glory, which was expressed very carefully in the Ten Commandments.

But it doesn't matter if you're Jew or Gentile, all have sinned. So all need the righteousness of who? God. And that righteousness manifested apart from the law and the prophets, though testified by the law and the prophets, that righteousness was manifested apart from the law and the prophets.

Righteousness by faith upon all to all who believe in Jesus Christ. That's the beauty of Romans 3 21 through the end of the chapter, but keep on reading chapter 4. How was Abraham righteous before God?

Abraham who, before circumcision, before the law, how was Abraham made righteous with God? By faith. Faith in the promise of the seed. Genesis 15 6, God spoke to him of Christ, Abraham believed the promise, and therefore he has the righteousness of Christ imputed to him by faith.

True of Abraham, certainly true of us, praise God. The grace of salvation. And so Jesus Christ had to die. Why did he have to die? Well that's explained in Romans 3 25 and 3 26. Or 3 24 25 and 26 explain why did he have to die.

The propitiation. And we don't have the word expiation, but that's given to us in chapter 4. David says, how blessed is the man against whom God does not account his sin, impute his sin. But the sin is gone, as far as the east is from the west.

Taken away. So all those ideas come together, and we have to give an accounting for it, and we can't give an accounting for all these wonderful gospel truths if we only say example, if we only say governance, if we only say victory.

We never get to the propitiation, expiation, redemption, atonement, the double imputation, my guilt upon Christ, he who knew no sin became sin for me, and for all for whom he died. Right? He who knew no sin became sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.

So our guilt imputed to him, his righteousness imputed to us. A great exchange. A great exchange. And people will complain about that and say, this is a legal fiction, this is a Western idea of salvation.

Actually it's very Eastern, because it goes all the way back to the Old Testament, to the ancient Near East, wherein God set down a pattern into the granite of Israel's history, offer up this lamb in your place.

The lamb without blemish, without spot, that'll be you, you'll be without blemish, you will be without spot, and the lamb will be the one that dies in your place and for your sake. And he embedded that into their history, a very Eastern history.

Even the.

Terminology that Jesus uses on the cross, when he dies, totalisti, that's a legal term, which means paid in full. The debt being paid. An exchange is happening there, and he utilizes that language. There's some additional terminology, so we've talked about some theories of the atonement, but then the questioner also asks, and we're going to tie in John 3 .16, why is penal substitutionary atonement so offensive to some?

And I think it also goes to the next question, is can we build a case for limited atonement or particular redemption? So the question is about John 3 .16, which actually both of those come up in its famous verse, for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that's whosoever believeth shall not perish but have everlasting life.

And so there, Jesus is dying on the cross, he's giving up his life, Jesus is known as the Son, and so we're talking about penal substitutionary atonement. God is sacrificing his Son, how is that not cosmic child abuse?

Because the terminology is there, this is his Son, and he loves the world so much that he sent his Son to be a penal substitutionary atonement. So there's that aspect, and then tying it into whosoever believes shall not perish.

He loved the world that he gave his Son. So where do we get this idea of a limited atonement? We were.

Talking about the theories of the atonement, and generally I'm thinking limited or unlimited atonement. You know, that's what I was thinking, and that's not really where we went, that Michael brought up, because those were those first theories, you know, the misguided or misordered, bringing up Eudoxus and Gratias, and maybe some more liberal theories, you know, it's built upon the idea that man's just sick or man needs a good, you know, man's not really dead, man's not under the judgment of God.

Those are the more liberal versions of Christianity, if you could even say that. But when we talk about how the New Testament clearly talks about, uses the terms penal substitution, propitiation, judgment, sin, we're now solidly in the biblical camp, and on that biblical camp, people who support penal substitution, some are limited atonement, and some are unlimited.

Some are more, or and you can use these terms differently, or there are different terms, I guess,.

Sometimes be used. Particular redemption. Yeah, particular limited atonement is particular redemption. Yeah. And then you've got unlimited atonement or universal atonement, sometimes those are used synonymously.

Sure, yeah. So that is,.

Those are the two competing views of penal substitution. Right. In the.

Penal substitution camp. Yeah, so then we have this verse that says, whoever believes shall not perish. And so how do some people come to the idea that the atonement would be limited? In what sense would it be limited?

How is that.

Term being used? Right, so the limited atonement, the most important thing about that is it starts with the letter L, and so it's an essential for spelling tulip. It's, so we can say tulip, you know, so that we can easily explain the five points of Calvinism.

Right. So L for limited atonement, but most everybody believes in a limited atonement of some kind. So we start there and say, most Christians, and without hardly any exceptions, most Christians believe that not everybody goes to heaven.

Okay, and so Jesus in dying on the cross in some fashion does not save everybody and get them all to heaven. Now there are some people who have tried to maintain that idea, but it's really hard, especially since Jesus himself says that that is not the case.

And of course we've got a lot to learn there and trust in God and his glory and to appreciate grace for what it is, but even somebody who says, I don't believe in limited atonement, what they mean is, I don't believe in that L as it's part of the five points of Calvinism.

They don't mean, generally, they think that everybody's just going to go to heaven. Whether they know it or not, like it or not, everyone's gonna end up there. They would find that idea bad, in bad taste as well.

But would they affirm that Jesus died for everyone? Yes, so they would say Jesus died for everybody, and then if you were to ask them, well then why doesn't everybody go to heaven, what would the response probably be?

Because they didn't choose Christ. That's usually.

The determining factor. If we have a general atonement or unlimited that is unlimited in scope, that Jesus died for all persons that have ever lived or would ever lived, the deciding factor must be that person either believed or.

They did not. So eternal life is a gift of God. You're not required to take the gift, but it is freely offered to everyone who is informed about it. So my next question for them would generally go along, because we need to talk about the real gut punch of Christianity, is that what about all those people who weren't informed about the gift?

Why didn't God arrange for them to all get a notification about the gift? Because we're talking about the atonement. Okay, if it's limited in the sense of response, let's say that. Okay, Jesus died for everybody, but you're saying that people have to respond appropriately in.

Order to obtain that gift. Like a mass text would have been nice. Something.

Everyone. Something. So it's limited to the response, which means that it's limited to their exposure. And so you have billions who have lived and died without being exposed to the message. So my follow-up question is why then did God arrange for Jesus' atonement, for him to die on the cross in such a way that it would not secure that opportunity for all these people?

Since he's dying for everyone, but in that atonement, in his death upon the cross and resurrection from the dead, since it was for everybody, but somehow it did not secure the opportunity for everyone.

It secured the gift for everyone, but did not secure the opportunity for everyone. So they're believing in a limited, in a limited atonement in that sense, because since the possibility of salvation is limited by the exposure to the gospel, that was not provided for in the.

Atonement. Right, yeah. And particularly given the definition of atonement, at one.

With God, they are not at one with God, because they did not respond. So it's going to be very limited. Limited based on missionary efforts, evangelism efforts, technology, availability of the travel or broadcast, getting the word out and so on.

The point of what I'm saying is that if the atonement is limited by response, well that means it's also limited by the opportunity to respond, which apparently God did not secure for everyone in the atonement.

And you're.

Saying this those ideas are just incompatible. Well I think it's.

Incompatible, but it's one of those things that is not considered. It seems to be, well God is not heartless in that Christ would only die for some people made in his image. He has to die for all human beings everywhere equally in the same way, otherwise it's unfair.

Well it's also a little unfair to only have.

Missionaries there, to only have those first couple thousand people there.

In what would become Palestine. If your concern, yeah, if your concern is God being fair, then the problem really isn't the atonement. The problem is that he didn't arrange for everybody to have the same opportunity to respond to the gospel.

That's actually the issue. And when I share that with folks who reject the idea of a limited atonement in the sense that we're talking about, then they begin reaching for things. And I can see them being uncomfortable, and they begin reaching for things.

And they'll say, well I think that maybe, you know, when people die, God gives everybody an opportunity, you know, kind of post-life, you know, debriefing. Here's what you missed. You didn't get your opportunity.

Here's the gospel. Here's your opportunity to respond before we go ahead and stick you in heaven or in hell. Nice thought, not in the scriptures, right? Nowhere in the Bible. And most of these folks that I talk to are very much dedicated to the Bible.

And so we have to come to an agreement that that's a pretty hard gut punch. So even if you reject limited atonement because you feel like that God is being unfair, you still have to say God is being awfully unfair by not arranging for, in the atonement, equal opportunity for everyone to respond.

Right. So we're not really gaining any ground into the camp of God being fair, even by rejecting limited atonement. Now the question is, well what about all the scriptures that say Jesus Christ died for the world?

I rejoice in those scriptures. Right? I rejoice in those scriptures. He did die for the world. We see that Jesus Christ shed his blood for every tribe, tongue, people, and nation. We can fully affirm that he died on the cross for all without distinction.

But I can't say, I'm gonna say all, I'm gonna rejoice in the word all and recognize that that's what it means in the context, all without distinction. It's not just the Jews, but it's Jews and the Gentiles.

Not just men, but men and women. Not just parents, but parents and children. All. Not just masters, but masters and slaves. All. Right? Not just as civilized people, but also barbarians. All without distinction.

And I rejoice in that truth, and that should drive our missions, and that should drive our evangelism with all kinds of confidence. But it's not all without exception. It doesn't mean he died for all without exception, because we know there are people he did not die on the cross for.

Why do we know that? Because the Bible also says that as well. And we have to wrap our heads around that. So John chapter 10, verse 14, Jesus says, I am the Good Shepherd, and I know my sheep, and I'm known by my own, as the Father knows me.

Even so, I know the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep. Who does he lay his life down for? The sheep. For the sheep. His sheep. His flock. His sheep. That's right. And he says, and of the sheep I have which are not of this fold, them also I must bring.

And they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock and one shepherd. So metaphorically, he's talking about Jews and Gentiles. He's gonna bring them all in as one. That's Ephesians 2. Therefore my Father loves me, because I laid down my life, that I may take it again.

That dispels the cosmic child abuse thing, because Jesus is doing this willingly, not being forced to do it. Verse 18, no one takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down.

I have power to take it again. This command I have received from my Father. Now when the Jews confront him, the religious leaders confront him, and try to argue against him, and so on, he responds in verse 25, he says, I told you and you do not believe the works that I do in my Father's name.

They bear witness of me, but you do not believe. Why? Because you are not of my sheep. He just said he lays down his life for his sheep, and now he's saying, you're not of my sheep. So Jesus is not on the cross yet.

He's heading towards the cross, and he says, I'm gonna lay down my life for the sheep, Jew and Gentile, all without distinction. I'm gonna lay down my life for the sheep, and by the way, you're not of my sheep, which means what?

I'm not laying my life down for you, I'm laying down my life for the sheep. You're proving that you're not of the sheep, because you.

Don't believe. Notice it doesn't say, you know, you are not one of my sheep, because you don't believe. That's not what it says. Right. It says, you do not believe, because you're not one of my sheep.

Look at the order of it. Don't.

Change the order. That's right, and so for clarification on this, this is not like the first time this theme has come up in the Gospel of John. This is underwritten by themes already established in John chapter 6.

So Jesus says in verse 36, but I said to you that you have seen me, and yet do not believe. He's saying this to the crowds. Why are these people not believing in him? Well, he begins to explain this, just like he did in chapter 10.

Why did they not, you're not of my sheep, therefore you don't believe. Right, so he says in chapter 10, but chapter 6, he has a very similar situation with some of these crowds. Verse 37 of John chapter 6, he says, all that the Father gives me will come to me.

All. All without distinction. Jew or Gentile, right? And the one who comes to me, I will by no means cast out. So the Father and the Son, they do this saving work in agreement. They're not working at cross-purposes.

For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. This is the will of the Father who sent me, that of all that he has given me, I should lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

So all the Father gives to me will come to me, and all that he gives me I will raise up at the last day. Security of the believer. Preservation of the saints. Mm-hmm. So all who the Father gives to the Son will be saved, and saved for all of eternity.

Resurrection included. Verse 40, and this is the will of him who sent me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have everlasting life, and I will raise.

Him up on the last day. And that's usually what people kind of focus on. When you believe in the Son, you will be raised up on the last day. You believe in him, you will be raised up. No one can statue you out of the Father's hand.

But why do you believe? But why do you believe? And that's what the chapter, the whole paragraph says.

Yeah, because the Father gave them to the Son. And well in there, because we're.

Using Trinitarian language, the Father gave to the Son, and then all that were given to the Son he will raise on the last day. So then, if Jesus has died for everyone, every single person, and there he's saying that everyone that is given to me I will raise, don't you by necessity have universalism?

Right. It's a.

Logical step. Yeah, that gets to the nature of the Atonement, that it was an actual, effective, something actually happened in the Atonement. It wasn't a, it wasn't the paving of potential, but it was the doing of something real that changes everything.

And so, continuing with the theology of the Trinity and so on, remembering that, you know, salvation is for all, not just the Jews but also the Gentiles, and you get to Acts 11, there was a little bit of consternation amongst the Jews that Peter went and preached to the Gentiles, ate Gentile food, and hang out with the Gentiles, but of course Peter was sent there to preach the gospel to Cornelius and his household, and Peter's trying to explain it to them, and it's like, but, you know, this is the whole baptism of the Holy Spirit thing happened, and then they got quiet, and they realized, oh, they repented and believed, and this was shown by the Holy Spirit's work in their life.